The St. Petersburg Narodnik newspaper Severnaya
Mysl[1] recently published a report from Riga concerning the
progress of the insurance
campaign.[2] Among other things the author, B. Braines, wrote:

“The boycottist trend is apparent only among the
shoemakers, where boycottist groups have been formed. Unfortunately, the
Narodniks are the leading spirits in these groups. At the other factories
the campaign is making little headway.”

This candid confession throws a strong light on the present condition
and political significance of Narodism in Russia. The correctness of the
appraisal of Narodism made by the conference of
Marxists[3] is unexpectedly and strikingly confirmed by the Narodniks
themselves.

Just think of it: a Left-Narodnik newspaper, unable to make any
refutation whatsoever, publishes the regrets of its correspondent
that the Narodniks are the “leading spirits” of the
boycottist groups!

Here is a splendid illustration of the political, disintegration of
Narodism. Here is an example of Russian non-partyism and indifference to
the party principle. We must deal with this example, because an example
from the life of “another” party reveals to us with striking clarity the
true cause of an evil which is generally very widespread, and from which we
suffer considerably.

During the period of counter-revolution a great variety of trends and
groups, all practically independent of one another, arose among the
Narodniks. In this respect, both the Narodniks and the Marxists were
evidently affected by the operation of the general causes stemming from the
entire historical situation created by the Third of June
system.[4] Among the Narodniks, individual groups came out in the press,
for example, in a far more liquidationist vein than was the case with us
(the Paris publications of 1908–10), and there were groups of quite an
anarchist character, and the most prominent writers of that trend began to
talk and write like liberals and renegades (Mr. V. Chernov in
Zavety[5]), and so forth.

Nevertheless, formally and outwardly, the Narodniks appear to be much
more “united” than the Marxists are. There is no definite split
among the Narodniks, no intense, stubborn, systematic and prolonged inner
struggle among them. It seems, at first glance, as though they are all the
time held together by certain common ties. In their literature one
constantly comes across proud references to Narodnik “unity”, in contrast
with the “Marxist” (and most often “Bolshevik”) “tendency towards
discord and splits”.

Those who want to understand the meaning and significance of what is
taking place in the working-class and socialist movements in Russia must
ponder very, very care fully over this contraposing of “Marxist splits”
and “Narodnik unity”.

Among us Marxists and near-Marxists there are also no few groups and
grouplets which are practically almost independent of one another, and
which sedulously preach “unity” (quite in the Narodnik spirit), and still
more sedulously condemn “Marxist splits”.

What does it all mean? Are we to envy “Narodnik unity”? Are we to
seek the reasons for this distinction in the pernicious qualities of
“certain” “leaders” (a very widespread method) or in the Marxists’
pernicious tendency towards “dogmatism”, “intolerance”, and so forth?

Consider the facts. These tell us that the Narodniks are far more
tolerant and conciliatory, that they are far more “united”, and that the
abundance of groups among them does not lead to sharp splits. At the same
time the facts tell us quite incontrovertibly that the Narodniks are
politically impotent, that they have no organised or durable
contacts with the masses, that they are incapable of any mass
political action. The example of the Narodnik boycottists in Riga merely
serves to illustrate most strikingly what was revealed
not only in the insurance campaign, but also in the Duma elections, the
strike movement, the working—class press (even more broadly, the
democratic press at large), the trade unions, and so forth. For example, we
read the following in issue No. 2 of the Left-Narodnik Severnaya
Mysl:

“To the honour of the Marxists be it said that at present they enjoy
considerable influence in the unions [i. e., the trade
unions] whereas we Left Narodniks work in them without a definite
plan, and for that reason our influence is scarcely felt.”

Strange, is it not? The conciliatory, tolerant, “united”,
non-splitting, broad-minded, non-dogmatic Narodniks—notwithstanding
their ardent desire and striving—conduct no insurance
campaign, exercise no influence on the trade unions, and have
no organised group in the Duma. But the “dogmatic” Marxists, who
are “for ever splitting” and thereby enfeebling themselves, fought a
splendid election campaign during the Fourth Duma elections, are conducting
successful activities in the trade unions, are running a splendid and
vigorous insurance campaign, carry on fairly effective activities in the
strike movement, pass unanimous decisions which are consistent in
principle, and are unanimously, firmly and with conviction supported by an
obvious and unquestionable majority of the class-conscious workers.

Strange, is it not? Are not the “conciliatoriness”, and all the other
splendid spiritual qualities of the Narodniks merely sterile
things?

That is exactly what they are—sterile! The “unity” of the varied
intellectualist little groups is bought by the Narodniks at the price, of
their utter political impotence among the masses. And with us Marxists,
too, it is the
Trotskyists,[6] the liquidators, the “conciliators”, and the
“Tyszka-ites”,[7] those who shout loudest about group unity, who
display the same intellectualist impotence, while the real
political campaigns, not the imaginary ones, but those that grow out of
actual conditions (election, insurance, daily press, strike campaigns,
etc.) show that the majority of the class-conscious workers are
rallied around those who are most often, most zealously and most fiercely
accused of being “splitters”.

The conclusion to be drawn is clear, and however unpalatable it may be
to the host of intellectualist groups the course
of the working-class movement will compel them to admit it. This
conclusion is that attempts to create “unity” by means of “agreements”
or “alliances” among intellectualist groups, which in fact
express tendencies that are injurious to the working-class
movement (Narodism, liquidationism, etc.), lead only to complete
disintegration and impotence. Both Narodism and liquidationism have
proved this by their lamentable example.

Onlyin opposition to these groups and grouplets (in a
strenuous struggle, which is inevitable under bourgeois conditions and
amidst a host of petty-bourgeois vacillations) is real unity building up
among the working-class masses led by the majority of the class-conscious
proletarians.

Na\"ive people will ask: How are we to distinguish the intellectualist
groups which are causing damage to the working-class movement by
disintegrating it and condemning it to impotence, from that group or groups
which ideologically express the working-class movement, rally, unite and
strengthen it? There are only two ways of distinguishing one from the
other: theory and practical experience. It is necessary seriously to
examine the theoretical content of such trends of thought as
Narodism and liquidationism (the principal petty-bourgeois trends that ate
disintegrating the working-class movement). It is necessary to carefully
study the practical experience of the mass working-class movement as a
means of rallying the majority of class-conscious workers around integral
and considered decisions, based on principle and applied in elections, in
insurance campaigns, in activities in the trade unions, in the strike
movement, in the “underground”, and so forth.

He who gives close thought to the theory of Marxism and close attention
to the practical experience of the last few years will realise that the
elements of a genuine workers’ party are rallying in Russia in spite
of the motley, noisy, and vociferous (but essentially futile and
harmful) groups of Narodniks, liquidators, and so forth. Unity of the
working class is emerging from the disintegration of these groups and their
isolation from the proletariat.

Notes

[1]Severnaya Mysl (Northern Thought)—one of the names
of the Left-Narodnik (Socialist-Revolutionary) legal newspaper Zhivaya
Mysl (Living Thought) published in St. Petersburg twice, then
three times a week, from August 1913 to July 1914. During that period the
newspaper changed its name ten times: Zavetnaya Mysl
(Cherished Thought), Volnaya Mysl (Free
Thought), Vernaya Mysl (True Thought), etc.

[2]Insurance campaign refers to the struggle which developed in
connection with the elections to the insurance agencies. The campaign
started in the autumn of 1912 following the introduction by the tsarist
government on June 23, 1912, of a workers’ insurance law affecting only
twenty per cent of the workers. The Bolsheviks used these elections for
revolutionary propaganda and launched a campaign for the winning over of
legal workers’ organisations and legal workers’ associations. By combining
legal and illegal activities, the Bolsheviks succeeded in winning influence
in the insurance bodies. Elections to the Insurance Board were held in
March 1914, and a workers’ group on insurance affairs was formed under the
Board, which recognised as its official organ the Bolshevik journal
Voprosy Strakhovania (Insurance Questions).

[3]Lenin is referring here to the Joint Conference of the
R.S.D.L.P. Central Committee and Party officials, held in the village
of Poronin on September 23–October 1 (October 6–14), 1913, and called,
for reasons of secrecy, the “August” (“Summer”) Conference. The
resolution on “The Narodniks” referred to here was drafted by Lenin. (See
present edition, Vol. 19, pp. 429–31.)

[4]OnJune 3(16), 1907 the tsar issued a manifesto dissolving the
Second Duma and modifying, the electoral law. The new law considerably
increased the representation of the landlords and the commercial and
industrial bourgeoisie in the Duma, and made great cuts in the number of
peasants’ and workers’ representatives, which was small enough as it
is. This was a gross violation of the Manifesto of October 17, 1905 and the
Fundamental Law of 1906 by which no laws could be passed by the government
without approval by the Duma. The Third Duma, which was elected on the
basis of this law and met on November 1 (14), 1907, was a
Black-Hundred-Octobrist Duma.

The coup d’état of June 3 ushered in the period of the Stolypin
reaction.

[5]Zavety (Behests)—a legal literary and political
monthly of a Socialist-Revolutionary trend, published in St. Petersburg
from April 1912 to July 1914.

[6]Trotsky, L. D. (1879-1940)—a bitter enemy of
Leninism. During the years of reaction and the new revolutionary upswing,
he took what was virtually a liquidator stand under the guise of
“non-factionalism”. In 1912 he organised the anti-Party August
bloc. During the First World War he took a centrist stand. Joined the
Bolshevik Party on the eve of the October Socialist Revolution, but
continued his factional activity. In 1918 he opposed the signing of the
Peace of Brest. In 1920–21 he opposed Lenin’s policy on the trade unions
and the trade union movement. In 1923 he led the opposition against the
general line of the Party. The Communist Party denounced Trotskyism as a
petty-bourgeois deviation within the Party and defeated it ideologically
and organisationally. In 1927 Trotsky was expelled from the Party. In 1929
he was deported from the U.S.S.R. for anti-Soviet activity and subsequently
deprived of Soviet citizenship.

[7]Tyszka, J. (1867–1919)—a prominent leader of the Polish and
German labour movement. During the years of reaction Tyszka denounced the
liquidators, but on a number of occasions took a conciliatory stand towards
them. In 1912 he came out against the decisions of the Prague
Conference. Lenin sharply criticised Tyszka’s activities during that
period. During World War I Tyszka took an Internationalist stand. In 1918
he helped to found the Communist Party of Germany and was elected Secretary
of its Central Committee. He was murdered in a Berlin prison in 1919.